The Russellville Democrat. [volume] (Russellville, Ark.) 1875-1898, 1887-03-02
The Arkansas Legislature.
February %.
SENATE

SENATE
House bill No. 303, bill to en-
force the constitutional provision
against usury. Read third time.
Senator Byrne showed that the IN
tentlon of the bill is to carry into
effect tile provision of the constitu-
ton against usury, which provides
the legislature shall prevent usury
by law. 1t is also to repeal a Ger
tain ruling of court which compels
the complainant to carry into court
the entire principle and interest, and
tender it TO the defendant. This
statute says that such a tender need
not be made.
Senator Crockett thought that
senators here needed no further ex-
PLANTATION to understand the neces-
sity of his bill. The ruling demand
ing tender originated in England
and no reason has ever been given
for it.
Senator Hammons differed with
the preceding senators. The old
established rule which had been
maintained so long by the courts
was founded on equity. He beliey
ed the constitution goes for naught.
The idea of setting aside the entire
debt because little more than the
legal interest is entirely Inequitable.
He thought the provision of the
constitution wrong. 1t is enough
for court of equity to perfect the
usurious interest.
Senator j. +. Williams could not
support this measure. He showed
the history and growth of chancery
Jurisdiction showing this rule to be
highly proper. The wrong done in
usurious contract is the charging
usurious interest. The just remedy
is to set aside the contract and for
felt to over amount of interest charg
ed. Equity demands that if yon
ask justice you must give justice.
Senator Copeland believed that a
great evil exists in Arkansas re :
garding usury and so long as the
country is allowed to wink a:
usury the evil would still exist.
Senator Mcconnell could not
think the law good one. The rule
of the court. shonld no, be disturbed.
- aid not think that man should
forfeit all his money because he
happened to charge little more in
terest than the law allows.
Senator Byrne showed the lncon-
sistency of the old rule. If a man
is sued on usurious note he can
avoid paying it by pleading usury.
But if be wants to get into court to
get rid of usurious note he must
first tender the principle and relief
as to the usurious interest. He
also showed the law to be such as
the constitution says shall be
passed.
Senator Hanna regarded the pro
vision of the constitution as manda
tory. He read the law now existing
showing that it fails to carry out the
plain mandate of the constitution.
He believed the bill would give the
relief demanded by the constitution
and he hoped the bill would pass.
Senator Crandall had no special
love for this constitution any way.
He had sworn to support it, how
ever, and proposed to do it so far as
he could make it harmonic. This
mandatory provision is in conflict
with the bin of rights in which it is
declared that the right to own prop
erty is higher than a constitutional
sanction. We are called upon to
set aside an old established rule of
court, founded on justice and main
tanned by long experience simply
because the constitution says il
shall be done. He believed the
courts Of the county and the su
preme court obey the constitution
and they adhered to this rule. He
urged the senate to let the law re
main as it is.
Senator Duuaway understood that
laws are enacted for the benefit of
the masses Of the people. The
masses are the borrower, but ma
jority OF the laws are in favor Of the
lender. He wanted something done
for the borrower and hoped the bill
would pass
Senator Stayton could see nothing
wrong in the law. He believed all
men should be placed on the same
footing This bill he believed would
fill long felt want. 1t might be
said that this law will drive capital
from the state. He believed it would
drive an :llegitimate business from
the country but the vacancy would
be filled by legitimate business.
Senator Hudson regarded the act
as thrust at the mercial inter
ests OF the country. Now, note